>> Re: Send a Message to JOHN F. BURNS Re: The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
J A
the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:yjmWiMB2...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
> In message <wZ-dneuuc-IUyCrV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:JrVYQ8A0...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> You claimed that emergency reinforcements of US units were called in at
>>> some point *after* the start of the operation, when British forces
>>> refused
>>> to move to aid the Iraqis - which is incorrect.
J A >>You are a liar making things up in your mind.
Adam > Look, I'm just pointing out the facts to you.
You are not.
I have made no claims past what has been published by credible news
organizations, three of them British, one US, whose author is a Britsh
reporter.
You're denying what a number of top level news organizations, several of
them British, have reported about US troops being sent into Basra to help
the Iraqi Army, in March.
> Whining "liar" every time your delusions are denied doesn't make you any
> more credible.
I'm not the one who is whining about credible news stories, that he's afraid
to contest, with The Times, the BBC, the Guardian, the NY Times,,,,
and you are lying.
>
>>I claimed nothing past what the news articles in The Times, the BBC, and
>>the
>>NY Times, claimed.
>
> And those claims are incorrect. As has been repeatedly proven to you.
You haven't proven anything.
If you had proof, you would take it to those news organizations and get
retractions.
It's that simple - and everybody knows it.
I've given you the email and phone contacts for the NY Times, and the others
are all Brtish news organizations for which you can find the contacts
yourself.
<snip smoke>
Here are the four stories Adam is in denial about. I have claimed no
independent knowledge, only what has been published by the The Times, the
BBC, the Guardian, and the NY Times. All four follow.
Burns NY Times article : Britain Debates Army's Delay at Basra
By JOHN F. BURNS (a top British reporter for the NY Times with about 5 yrs
reporting in Iraq)
Published: August 6, 2008
LONDON - More than four months after American troops were moved hundreds of
miles across Iraq to help save a faltering Iraqi Army offensive against
Shiite militias in the southern oil city of Basra, a political controversy
has erupted here over Britain's failure to promptly deploy its own troops,
stationed only a few miles from the fighting.
British newspapers have made much of the dismay that the delayed British
entry into the Basra fighting caused among American commanders, who
committed nearly 1,000 soldiers to the fighting. Many of the Americans were
moved from bases in central Iraq, the first time United States troops had
been committed to combat in the southernmost area of the country since
British troops took control of the area after the 2003 invasion, leaving
central and northern Iraq to the much larger American force.
The charges come as Prime Minister Gordon Brown faces a widening challenge
to his leadership within the governing Labor Party, less than 14 months
after he succeeded Tony Blair.
Eager to distance himself from a war that hastened Mr. Blair's downfall, Mr.
Brown pledged last fall to halve British troops in Iraq this year. He pulled
the British garrison out of the heart of Basra in September, and began a
drawdown that left the bulk of the remaining force of about 4,100 troops at
a base at the Basra airport, about 10 miles from the city center. But the
fighting in the city in March caused him to scrap plans to reduce the
British force to 2,500 this year, and the latest government plan, outlined
last month, is to aim for substantial cutbacks in 2009.
British military experts say Mr. Brown's shifting signals have left the
British force in Iraq in a no man's land, still committed in significant
numbers but having limited effect because of a determination to limit
British casualties. This ambivalence, these experts say, contributed to the
confusion in which British troops delayed for six days joining the battle
over Basra in March.
The result, as one British military expert with extended experience in Iraq
put it, was that British forces stood by for several days while American
troops helped Iraqi units regain control of a city that Britain, responsible
for the city for nearly five years, had effectively abandoned only six
months before.
Some of the debate in Britain has centered on a secret deal that Britain's
commanders have acknowledged reaching with the Shiite militia known as the
Mahdi Army to assure a casualty-free pullout from the Basra Palace base
beside the Shatt al Arab waterway in the heart of the city last September.
The deal, these officers have said, involved releasing from British custody
Ahmed al-Fartusi, a senior Mahdi Army commander, and 120 other militia
members, in return for a promise that the retreating British troops would
not be attacked.
The overnight pullout went off without bloodshed, though at least some
British officers have described it as shameful. One newspaper, The
Independent on Sunday, published a weekend interview in which Col. Richard
Iron, who leads British teams mentoring Iraqi Army units in Basra, described
the deal as "understandable but inexcusable," because it strengthened the
Mahdi Army's ability to take control of much of Basra as the British
withdrew, and, the colonel said, compounded the "terrible mistakes" British
forces made in tolerating Shiite militias throughout their years in southern
Iraq.
The Times of London, in a front-page article on Monday by the paper's
defense editor, Michael Evans, said the September deal had prevented British
commanders from sending troops back into the city during the Iraqi-led
offensive in March. The paper said an armored brigade and special forces
units based at the airport "watched from the sidelines for six days" until
Britain's defense secretary, Desmond Browne, gave approval to join the
fighting. The first American troops were committed to the battle within 48
hours.
The Defense Ministry in London reacted vigorously to the article, saying in
a statement that while British forces had "always been prepared to talk to
anyone who wishes to renounce violence," there had been "no 'deals' with
militias that kept us out of the city." British military experts said the
statement appeared to have been crafted in a way that acknowledged, by
inference, that a pact had covered the pullout in September, but denied that
the terms of the agreement limited British military action in March.
When they joined the fighting, the ministry said, British forces "provided
the assistance that Iraqi authorities sought from us, including armor,
artillery, airpower, medical and logistic support." But only a month after
the Basra fighting ended, an open letter to British troops in Iraq from the
country's overall army commander, Gen. Sir Richard Dannatt, acknowledged, at
least implicitly, the frustration that the delay in entering the battle had
caused among British troops. "I cannot deny that there are many who said
that they would rather be at the forefront of the operations," he said.
American commanders have withheld public criticism of the British actions,
and have said, when speaking not for publication, that they sympathize with
the political problems Mr. Brown faces, because opinion polls indicate
strong British opposition to the war within both his own party and the
British electorate.
But the March events have sown ill feeling that has been rare between the
militaries. One British expert on Iraq who has advised Gen. David H.
Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, described the chill he
encountered among American officers and civilian officials in Baghdad after
the Basra offensive. He asked that his name be withheld in exchange for
candor in discussing a sensitive topic.
"Having a British passport was a bonus" for advisers visiting Saddam
Hussein's
old Republican Palace, the American command center in Baghdad, at earlier
stages of the war, he said. "But when I went back in March, it was a
distinct disadvantage. There was a strong air of disillusionment."
==
Entire article http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7543187.stm
Did Britain make Mehdi Army pact?
UK troops were deployed a week after the offensive began
The British in Basra made a secret pact with the Mehdi Army which kept the
military out of March's Iraqi-led offensive against the Shia militia for a
week, according to the Times newspaper.
The BBC's Crispin Thorold, in Baghdad, assesses whether such an
"accommodation" could have been possible.
In March this year the Iraqi security forces launched a major offensive
against the Mehdi Army, a Shia militia, in Iraq's second city Basra. From
the beginning the British described that operation as "Iraqi planned, led
and executed".
But once again questions are being asked about why the British were so slow
to put their troops on the ground in the city.
From the earliest hours of the Iraqi military operations in Basra it was
clear that things were not going according to plan.
MoD denial
The resistance by Shia militiamen was much stronger than had been
anticipated.
Yet British troops were only deployed from Basra's airport into the city
after nearly a week of fighting.
Could that decision have been dictated by a secret deal between the British
and the Mehdi Army, as suggested by the Times?
The newspaper has claimed that UK troops initially stayed out of the battle
because of a pre-arranged "accommodation" with the Mehdi Army - denied
flatly by the Ministry of Defence.
They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission
Major Tom Holloway
However, closer examination of the British relationship with the militias in
Basra shows that such a deal could have been possible.
Military intelligence sources have told the BBC that the British have been
talking to Shia militias including the Mehdi Army for several years.
At times the frequency of the talks have declined, like during the Shia
uprising in 2004.
More recently there appear to have been specific deals between the two
sides.
Ali al-Salman, a senior commander of the Mehdi Army in Basra told the BBC
that he attended three meetings with a "British army officer and a British
'civilian' between 8 February and 10 February 2007".
According to the militia commander, a colonel from the Iraqi Army, and Ahmad
Al-Fartusi, another member of the Mehdi Army who had been detained by the
British, were also present.
'Prisoners released'
Our attempts to find Ahmad al-Fartusi, who is now in hiding, have been
unsuccessful. The Iraqi Army refused to comment.
Ali al-Salman claims that under the terms of the deal 60 Shia prisoners were
released, the British agreed to stop patrolling in Basra and the Mehdi Army
agreed not to attack the British headquarters in the city.
The Mehdi Army commander argues that the British "didn't keep their part of
the bargain as [in April 2008] they participated in military operations in
Basra".
The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates
BBC source
A British military spokesman in Basra refused to discuss the details of any
negotiations with any party.
"Nothing of that nature affected movement into the city", said Major Tom
Holloway.
If there were any sort of accommodation between the Mehdi Army and the
British army the details are unlikely to have been widely disseminated.
"If the delay in fighting in March/April 2008 was due to a deal the only
people who would have known would have been the defence minister, the
defence chief, a very senior commander in the field and some planners," said
a British military intelligence source.
"The command has to maintain morale. It can't be seen to do a deal with
people who have killed soldier's mates. That would make the government as
popular as a bag of puke," said the source.
Whatever the truth there are still serious questions about why the British
took so long to support the Iraqi army when they were on the back-foot.
"British forces in Basra were postured for training," said Major Tom
Holloway, the British military spokesman in Basra.
"They were on the streets by 1 April when they had turned the training
mission into a support mission."
Political reluctance?
Observers reject that outright.
There are more than 4,000 British forces in the Basra airport, including
three or four infantry battle groups.
Even at a conservative estimate that would mean 1,800 British soldiers would
be ready to fight.
Could the delay have been due to a political reluctance in Whitehall for
British soldiers to be embroiled in an Iraqi fight just months after the
British had handed over security control of the province?
Again the answer to that is unclear.
The 60,000-strong Mehdi Army was created in 2003
The American military though was not as slow to respond.
Their extensive involvement in the battle for Basra was revealed by the BBC
in April 2008.
It is now clear that 1,000 American soldiers were on the streets of the city
within 48 hours.
Compare that to the British response.
The US military is said to be "slightly at a loss with the British".
There is a perception among some Americans that the decisions that were
taken were a direct result of an "accommodation" with the militias.
Either way the military consequences are now being seen in Basra.
"There are a lot of discrete American units operating in the city", said a
military intelligence source.
"They are considering sending as many as 15,000 troops down there".
===
BBC Wednesday, 26 March 2008, 00:41 GMT
Iraq forces battle Basra militias
Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki is in Basra supervising the operation
The UK military returned control of Basra to the Iraqis in December and
concentrated its forces at the city airport.
The Iraqi commander in charge, Lt Gen Ali Ghaidan, said the operation aimed
to purge Basra of what he called "outlaws".
Moqtada Sadr has threatened "general civil disobedience"
He said his forces had confiscated weapons and roadside bombs during raids
across Iraq's second city.
Routes into Basra have been sealed off, according to reports.
One resident of the city told the BBC: "The streets are very dangerous,
there's continuous exchange of fire in areas very close to my house, even
though my neighbourhood is relatively safer than others."
The BBC's Paul Wood says the fighting in Basra can be seen as the government
trying to impose law and order but also as part of the power struggle within
the Shia community.
He says such intra-Shia violence could be just as dangerous to hopes of
peace as sectarian hatreds or the insurgency.
Curfew
The offensive comes a day after the authorities in Basra imposed an
indefinite night-time curfew.
Police have now also imposed curfews in the cities of Kut, Samawa,
Nasiriyah, Hilla and Diwaniyah.
Moqtada Sadr called for "general civil disobedience in Baghdad and the Iraqi
provinces" if the attacks did not end.
In Sadr City, Mehdi Army fighters reportedly ordered Iraqi police and
soldiers out of the district and there have been clashes between rival
militias.
Hundreds of protesters marched in the Iraqi capital, calling on shops to
shut.
The Mehdi Army also took control of several areas in Kut, 175km (110 miles)
south-east of Baghdad.
Moqtada Sadr last month renewed the group's ceasefire, under which it
pledged not to attack rival armed groups or American forces in Iraq.
But the truce is said to have come under strain in recent weeks as US and
Iraqi forces detained militia members.
Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari told the BBC: "Militias have taken
over almost the city and law and order has collapsed, although it is not a
hopeless case because the government is taking measures to reverse the
situation.
"Remember, Basra is the lifeline of Iraq. Most of Iraq's oil exports go
through Basra."
==
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/29/iraq
Why are we still there
Leader The Guardian, Saturday March 29 2008
Britain has 4,000 troops on the edge of a battle, but no plans to get
involved. Last night the Ministry of Defence made it clear that this
country, unlike the US, is not about to join the offensive launched by the
Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, against Shia militants in Basra. A
defence source said the operation against the Mahdi army had been planned,
implemented and executed by the Iraqis. He said it was their operation and
their responsibility to bring security to Basra and Iraq as a whole. Yet if
Britain is distancing itself from a battle raging in a sector for which it
had responsibility until September last year, then what are British troops
still doing in Iraq?
This is not an easy question to answer. Senior British commanders have made
little secret of their desire to leave, privately acknowledging that the
British troops acted as a magnet for disorder, not its repellant. Gordon
Brown said last year that he wanted to reduce troop numbers to 2,500 (the
minimum required for self-protection) by late spring. But neither an early
departure nor a further reduction in troop levels is politically viable. It
would look like a retreat under fire, similar to Aden in 1967. That leaves
senior British defence planners with one option - to cross their fingers. If
the Iraqi army can finish the battle it started, British troops will look
less like blue-helmet observers, hoping earnestly never to fire their guns.
The signs yesterday, on the fourth day of the battle, were not encouraging.
As fighting spread to Baghdad, Nassiriya, Hilla, Amara, Kerbala and
Diwaniya, the Iraqi defence minister, Abdel Qader Jassim, admitted that
resistance had been stiffer than he had bargained for. In a change of
tactics, Mr Maliki extended the deadline for militants to surrender their
arms until April 8. Facts on the ground in Basra were difficult to
determine, but in telephone interviews it emerged that the battle for the
streets of Basra had only just begun. One Mahdi army commander told the
Guardian that it had captured a lot of the army's vehicles, guns and
mortars, and that its fighters were well accustomed to using the side
streets as their battle space.
Mr Maliki is taking an enormous gamble in staking the reputation of his
newly trained army against experienced street fighters in an urban terrain
which is very familiar to them. His motives for doing so may be murkier than
the mere desire to stamp the authority of central government on Shia
militias. In Basra some saw the street fighting as a turf war between Shia
militias, conducted in the run-up to crucial provincial elections in
October. One prominent member of Moqtada al-Sadr's movement in Basra said
the Mahdi army was being targeted not by the Iraqi government but by
government militias working for its rivals, the Supreme Islamic Council and
Mr Maliki's Dawa party.
Whatever is happening, it is not going according to script. When it left
Basra city centre last year the British army said it was handing over
control to the police and army. As we can see now, they never had control.
Neither does the violence confirm the optimism of the senior US commander,
General David Petraeus, who continues to claim that the surge of US troops
has worked. If anything, the extent of the clashes shows how fragile the
security gains over the past year have been and how dependent they were on
ceasefires - like the one with the Mahdi army which now lies in tatters.
This week's events expose the myth of an orderly hand-over of control from
an occupying to an indigenous army.
If the fighting continues, Britain has only two options: either to get back
into a messy and bloody street battle, or to leave altogether. Staying put
in Basra airport will not go down in the annals of military history as its
most glorious moment.
===
From The Times August 7, 2008
Sidelined British soldiers 'itched to join' US fight for Basra Michael
Evans, Defence Editor and Deborah Haynes in Baghdad
British troops encamped at the airport outside Basra when American units and
thousands of Iraqi reinforcements arrived in March to launch an attack on
Shia extremists in the city were itching to join in, the commander of
Britain's brigade at the time told The Times yesterday.
Brigadier Julian Free, commander of 4 Mechanised Brigade, said that they had
all wanted to be part of the operation "to help the Iraqis". But it was not
possible to deploy British military instructors to work alongside the Iraqi
troops in Basra until several days after the Baghdad-sponsored Operation
Charge of the Knights began.
A ministerial "submission" also had to be sent to London before a
company-sized force could be deployed. For six months, there had been no
British troops in the city after a deal last summer with the Shia militia.
The Ministry of Defence confirmed that Des Browne, the Defence Secretary,
had been sent the submission, but that he was required only to "note" it,
which he did. "There was no question of him having to make a decision
whether to approve it or not," the MoD said. Brigadier Free's comments
reflected the view of Lieutenant Colonel Chuck Western, one of the American
commanders sent to Basra in March, who told The Times that the British
appeared to be desperate to get into the city.
British commanders 'wanted to storm Basra'
Britain left facing wrath of its allies
One of the problems, Brigadier Free said, was that the British troops did
not have personal tracking devices, to make sure commanders knew where they
were at all times. The Americans arrived with tracker beacons fitted to
their vehicles, and Brigadier Free asked if he could have some for British
vehicles. That took a few days.
Brigadier Free spoke to The Times after stories in the paper in which
American commanders claimed that, because of the deal with al-Mahdi Army
Shia militia, British troops could not go into Basra when Operation Charge
of the Knights was launched. The MoD has insisted that the deal was a
separate issue and did not prevent troops from returning to Basra if
required.
The Americans and Iraqis started fighting al-Mahdi Army on Monday, March 24.
Brigadier Free managed to insert about 100 British trainers into the city by
the end of that week. He admitted that it was a nervous time when the first
British troops went back into Basra, but said that the atmosphere was
fantastic once the operation was under way.
== end
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
>This is about the US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
>the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
Except that they didn't.
>I have made no claims past what has been published by credible news
>organizations, three of them British, one US, whose author is a Britsh
>reporter.
And those claims are incorrect.
>You haven't proven anything.
So which units were sent to help the Iraqis? When were they called for?
When did they arrive? What did they do?
The answers are "nobody knows", to the power of four. Not even the
"credible news organisations" can find out which units were sent to
bolster a faltering Charge of the Knights: because no such units were
sent.
"Under General al-Firaiji’s British-sponsored three-phase plan, the
first stage was to have involved an intensive training programme to get
the Iraqi Army’s 14 Division, which had been sent to Basra, up to
combat-ready levels. The second phase was to involve negotiations with
the Iraqi Government to guarantee economic development in Basra. The
third phase, fixed for August, was to launch a large-scale operation in
Basra, with 14 Division reinforced by Iraqi troops from Baghdad.
The plan was taken up to Baghdad on March 21 and presented to General
David Petraeus, the US commander of the Multinational Corps, who showed
it to Mr al-Maliki. It was then that the Iraqi Prime Minister announced
that he wanted to send troops down to Basra the next day. Thousands of
Iraqi troops with 900 American minders from the US Marine Corps and 82nd
Airborne Division, as well as specialist planners from the 1,000-strong
coalition corps headquarters in Baghdad, arrived the next day at the
British airport base. The British provided Challenger 2 tanks as well as
artillery units and RAF Tornados, but no combat troops were requested."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article4467087.ece
Feel free to produce any evidence to the contrary, either gathered by
yourself or by "credible news organisations".
--
The nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its
warriors, will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done
by fools.
-Thucydides
paul<dot>j<dot>adam[at]googlemail{dot}.com
J A
> In message <i_adnTJGLckhGCXV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>This is about the US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
>>the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
>
> Except that they didn't.
>
>>I have made no claims past what has been published by credible news
>>organizations, three of them British, one US, whose author is a Britsh
>>reporter.
>
> And those claims are incorrect.
>
>>You haven't proven anything.
>
> So which units were sent to help the Iraqis? When were they called for?
> When did they arrive? What did they do?
>
> The answers are "nobody knows", to the power of four. Not even the
> "credible news organisations" can find out which units were sent to
> bolster a faltering Charge of the Knights: because no such units were
> sent.
Wrong.
Read the articles, mostly from British news organizations.
If you think they are wrong, then challenge the stories with the NY Times,
BBC etc.
Paul J. Adam
>
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:A$NaVyBb1...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <i_adnTJGLckhGCXV...@earthlink.com>, J A
>> <a...@re.com> writes
>>>This is about the US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
>>>the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
>>
>> Except that they didn't.
>>
>>>I have made no claims past what has been published by credible news
>>>organizations, three of them British, one US, whose author is a Britsh
>>>reporter.
>>
>> And those claims are incorrect.
>>
>>>You haven't proven anything.
>>
>> So which units were sent to help the Iraqis? When were they called for?
>> When did they arrive? What did they do?
>>
>> The answers are "nobody knows", to the power of four. Not even the
>> "credible news organisations" can find out which units were sent to
>> bolster a faltering Charge of the Knights: because no such units were
>> sent.
>
>Wrong.
>
>Read the articles, mostly from British news organizations.
I have. Have you?
>
>If you think they are wrong, then challenge the stories with the NY Times,
>BBC etc.
Don't need to - they've dropped the story as unfounded.
J A
That is yet another lie.
Paul J. Adam
>news:TH9ebKAZ...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> Don't need to - they've dropped the story as unfounded.
>
>That is yet another lie.
So name the units that were "rushed south" when Charge of the Knights
faltered. Have any of these "credible news organisations" managed to
come up with any of the detail that turns the story from second-hand
Baghdad lobby briefings, to researched fact?
They haven't and they won't. They're wrong and all your whining won't
change it.
Prove me wrong - say which units were "rushed south" and when. Since you
can't, you won't.
J A
> In message <tZGdna9WcL4zJyTV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:TH9ebKAZ...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> Don't need to - they've dropped the story as unfounded.
>>
>>That is yet another lie.
>
> So name the units that were "rushed south" when Charge of the Knights
> faltered. Have any of these "credible news organisations" managed to come
> up with any of the detail that turns the story from second-hand Baghdad
> lobby briefings, to researched fact?
>
> They haven't and they won't. They're wrong and all your whining won't
> change it.
>
>
> Prove me wrong - say which units were "rushed south" and when. Since you
> can't, you won't.
Contact the Pentagon if you want to know the details so much.
One of the stories I posted mentioned that some of the troops came from the
82nd Airborne, but you obviously didn't bother reading that.
As I've said many times, if you ACTUALLY think the story is untrue, take
your "facts" to the The Times, the BBC, Guardian, NY Times, and get
retractions.
You haven't, and you won't, for obvious reasons.
Paul J. Adam
>news:hVcyPCCfoluIFw$T...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> Prove me wrong - say which units were "rushed south" and when. Since you
>> can't, you won't.
>
>Contact the Pentagon if you want to know the details so much.
But can't any of these "reputable news organisations" find out?
>
>One of the stories I posted mentioned that some of the troops came from the
>82nd Airborne, but you obviously didn't bother reading that.
The troops from the 82nd Airborne were the embedded Military Training
and Transition teams with the IqA divisions deployed. No US units were
"rushed south" after the start of the operation. You've been told this
several times, plus the stories make it clear - are you not paying
attention or are you just confused?
Don't take my word for it, see how the Times quotes Petraeus.
"The 1st Division was still moving down there as the 14th Division was
very much in some very tough combat during which we were also shifting
so-called enablers to try to catch up with a very rapidly developing
situation as a result of a sudden decision by Prime Minister Maliki. We
were shifting Predators, attack helicopters, we were trying to establish
the kind of command-and-control mechanisms needed to bring the enablers
to bear.
Brigadier Julian Free, the acting commander at the time, fairly quickly
made a decision to put advisors back with the 14th Division as that
developed and to help the 14th Division given the challenges that they
had in the early days in Basra.
That action, the MiTTing of the 14th Division by the UK, the positioning
of armoured reserve forces by the UK, unmanned aerial vehicles and close
air support provided by the UK and the US, the provision of come MiTTs —
an Infantry Company from the 82nd Airborne Division, 504th Parachute
Infantry Regiment, the regiment I was privileged to command — from
Nassariyah, also MiTTing up with another element of the 14th Division,
the arrival of the two brigades of the 1st Iraqi Army Division with
their Marine MiTTs and also brought close air support controllers with
them ... and the provision of additional Iraqi forces, all of which were
literally on the move as 14th Division got into it and really was
challenged very much by the strength of the militia response. "
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article4505427.e
ce>
No US ground troops had to be "rushed south" after the start of the
operation: the US troops involved were the training teams embedded into
the Iraqi units. The Iraqis were the boots on the ground: MNF provided
air, artillery, logs and ISTAR (Petraeus' "enablers") and the MiTTs: the
MNF ground
Unless, of course, you're calling General Petraeus a liar, who knows
less about the operations under his command than "reputable news
organisations"...
Do you actually read the material you quote? You keep on repeating these
articles over and over, but I do not think they are saying what you are
thinking they are saying...
J A
> In message <57mdnSbqiZSeXSfV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:hVcyPCCfoluIFw$T...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> Prove me wrong - say which units were "rushed south" and when. Since you
>>> can't, you won't.
>>
>>Contact the Pentagon if you want to know the details so much.
>
> But can't any of these "reputable news organisations" find out?
They probably did.
But you just obfuscate here, instead of contacting them.
You're the only one who cares about it.
>>
>>One of the stories I posted mentioned that some of the troops came from
>>the
>>82nd Airborne, but you obviously didn't bother reading that.
>
> The troops from the 82nd Airborne were the embedded Military Training
Read the prior posts.
Paul J. Adam
>news:Z9Y8F3BN...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> But can't any of these "reputable news organisations" find out?
>
>They probably did.
So where are the reports?
There are no reports because they found the initial story was incorrect,
so they dropped it and moved on. Only a few credulous fools are still
clinging to the original, discredited, briefing.
>But you just obfuscate here, instead of contacting them.
>
>You're the only one who cares about it.
For someone who claims not to care, you're remarkably loud and
persistent. Are you dishonest, or just confused?
>>>One of the stories I posted mentioned that some of the troops came from
>>>the
>>>82nd Airborne, but you obviously didn't bother reading that.
>>
>> The troops from the 82nd Airborne were the embedded Military Training
>
>Read the prior posts.
I did. Evidently you didn't.
You didn't even read the articles you keep posting.
You "don't care" about the story, you don't read or understand the
articles you keep cutting and pasting, you have no idea what's going on,
and yet you cannot bring yourself to shut up and go away.
Now, whine about "retractions" and repost some more articles you don't
comprehend, there's a good obedient little idiot. You know I'm right
because you cannot find one iota of evidence to back up the claim you've
spent so long ranting about, and every time you're called on it you run
away.
It seems not a single "reputable news agency" can actually substantiate
the story. Why is that, I wonder?
Perhaps you need to go and contact these "reputable news agencies" and
have them come here to debate the issue.
But you won't, and we know why :)
J A
> In message <MM2dndldyMhScyfV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:Z9Y8F3BN...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> But can't any of these "reputable news organisations" find out?
>>
>>They probably did.
>
> So where are the reports?
>
> There are no reports because they found the initial story was incorrect,
> so they dropped it and moved on. Only a few credulous fools are still
> clinging to the original, discredited, briefing.
>
>>But you just obfuscate here, instead of contacting them.
>>
>>You're the only one who cares about it.
>
> For someone who claims not to care, you're remarkably loud and persistent.
> Are you dishonest, or just confused?
I'm having fun with a dishonest person running from the truth.
If you think they published bad information, go to them and get retractions.
Why don;t you try? You'd rather whine and cry about supposedly missing
details.
No sale.
For anyone wondering what this is about, below are some articles about the
US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
He's in whining denial about a number of top level news organizations,
several of
them British, have reported about US troops being sent into Basra to help
the Iraqi Army, in March.
I've given him the email and phone contacts for the NY Times, to challenge
the article in the NY Times, but he's afraid to go that route...
Paul J. Adam
>news:vA2hq8A3...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> For someone who claims not to care, you're remarkably loud and persistent.
>> Are you dishonest, or just confused?
>
>I'm having fun with a dishonest person running from the truth.
That's called "masturbation" in your case.
>For anyone wondering what this is about, below are some articles about the
>US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
>the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
The problem is, I can find out without much effort that the UK units
committed to Operation WARNOCK included 4 Brigade, the Scots Guards
battlegroup and 4 Royal Horse Artillery. The US had MITTs embedded with
the Iraqi Army units that opened the offensive, but didn't have to
commit any additional ground units. (Poor Antero got himself terribly
confused over that one)
So which US units had to be surged in to support a faltering Charge of
the Knights? Antero keeps insisting that it happened, but he can't find
any evidence that such ever happened. He can't say who was sent, when
they were called, when they arrived or what they did. But he's *sure* it
happened - he read it in the papers, and everything in the papers *must*
be true.
Repost the same articles again and whine "get a retraction" if I'm
right.
J A
> In message <msidnRxxzZeDCiHV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:vA2hq8A3...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>>> For someone who claims not to care, you're remarkably loud and
>>> persistent.
>>> Are you dishonest, or just confused?
>>
>>I'm having fun with a dishonest person running from the truth.
> That's called "masturbation" in your case.
The "mastubator" is the one too afraid to take his bullshit to The Times,
the NY Times, the Guardardian and the BBC, and get retractions.
Run along, jackoff.
For anyone wondering what this is about, below are some articles about the
US sending help to the Iraqis last March in Basra, when
the Iraqi Army offensive ordered by Maliki ran into trouble.
He's in whining denial about a number of top level news organizations,
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
I told him, "Repost the same articles again and whine "get a retraction"
if I'm right."
It looks like he's conceded because that's exactly what he did.
We know which British units were involved, we know which Iraqi units did
the actual fighting (14th Brigade, 9 Division; 3rd and 35th Brigades, 9
Div; 50th, 51st and 52nd Brigades, 14 Division; plus about four hundred
of their Special Operations Force). We even know that it was a battalion
from the 52nd Brigade whose poor performance was so well reported in the
first days
Surely some of these "reputable news agencies" can tell poor Antero
which US units had to be "surged into Basrah" when the operation
stumbled? He's *so* convinced it happened, yet not even the news stories
he keeps endlessly mumbling over and over again tell us anything about
any incoming US ground troops, or when and how they saved the day.
(The Guardian backed off the story on August 5, the Times on the 7th,
but Antero either didn't notice or didn't understand...)
Now, wait and see him repost the same superceded stories yet again,
hoping against hope that enough repetition will somehow make them
true...
D. Spencer Hines
--
DSH
Lux et Veritas et Libertas
Vires et Honor
"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:VMbv5vDG...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
J A
"D. Spencer Hines" <pan...@excelsior.com> wrote in message
news:RJBvk.1235$AB3....@eagle.america.net...
Really, Julia?
J A
> In message <i-adnedGVfLFUyDV...@earthlink.com>, J A
> <a...@re.com> writes
>
> I told him, "Repost the same articles again and whine "get a retraction"
> if I'm right."
>
> It looks like he's conceded because that's exactly what he did.
Nobody cares what you claim or what "facts" you say you have - you're a liar
who is too ball-less to challenge the news organizations who published the
stories you shrink from.
Paul J. Adam
<a...@re.com> writes
>"Paul J. Adam" <ne...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:VMbv5vDG...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk...
>> if I'm right."
>>
>> It looks like he's conceded because that's exactly what he did.
>
>Nobody cares what you claim or what "facts" you say you have
You obviously do...
>- you're a liar
Really? Where have I lied?
I've provided facts, you've provided... uncorroborated news stories you
cannot confirm and which have since been contradicted. When asked to
clarify, you whine and repost the same discredited material.
>who is too ball-less to challenge the news organizations who published the
>stories you shrink from.
The "news organisations" were publishing clarifications and retractions
within days. You were even shown the articles. Did you not read them, or
did you not understand them?